The new mantra of the left. There is yet no proof that any law was broken. But the left doesn't care as long as it thinks it can make people believe it to be so.
Hang in there, as it will soon be quite-apparent even to people like you, in total denial.
We all know how this works. The left wing won't believe it when there are no charges filed. And they'll cry and whine about that. Why? Because the truth does not matter to them. It is all about their lack of power.Â
"After concentrating their efforts for two and a half years on driving out the 138,000-plus American troops, the insurgents appear to be shifting their focus to the political and sectarian polarization of the country - apparently hoping to ignite a civil war - and to the isolation of the Iraqi government abroad."
And...
"Americans concede the growing sophistication of insurgent attacks and the insurgents' ability to replenish their ranks as fast as they are killed.
"We are capturing or killing a lot of insurgents," said a senior Army intelligence officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to make his assessments public. "But they're being replaced quicker than we can interdict their operations. There is always another insurgent ready to step up and take charge."
Which is it? More troops? Pull out completely? Draw down some numbers? Stay in the green zone?
To leave right now would be a disaster of the worst kind. It would waste the effort of our troops and do them a disservice. The largest diservice would be to the Iraqi people themselves.
We were hit many times around the globe well before we had troops in Iraq. If we weren't there they would have another reason or justification for attacking like, oh I don't know, having the audacity to breathe.
O.K Let's review. You at first said you never thought we should go in there. O.K fine. I disagree but understand your point of view. Then once we were there you said we should have had allot more troops. When more troops were mentioned you said it was because of Rummy Gdubya poor planning etc. etc. Then for months you say we should get out. When they hint at that you complain too.
This coming from a guy yelling bogged down after 1 week. You determined the outcome based upon what your pre concieved notion.
A country is not made over night and it's a huge task. But right now as we speak the Iraqi people are drafting a constitiution. The entire mid east is in flux and for the better in most cases. Change is scary to some people but change was long long over due in the ME. Many have begrudginly given the evil Gdubya some credit for that. Some can't, fine I'd rather see the ME keep changing than score political points. The sad part is that some are so blinded by thier ideology that they can't acknowledge any positive steps for fear that it gives them the appearance of being wrong. Iraqis are tough people and they'll come through this well.
You're right. The political process has no chance of moving forward and the security forces will never be able to act on their own..............quagmire!
Well if there was going to be mass retribution I would think we would have seen it by now. In general they are allowing them a place at the table. They want Saddams thugs brought to justice and rightly so but there has not been mass retribution killings by the Shias and Kurds as was first feared. One would expect that if they didn't do it now especially right after Bagdhad fell that it wouldn't happen on a massive scale. Is it still possible? Sure, but I think it would have already happened.
The Sunni's have now decided too to be part of the process. They saw their mistake and admitted as much after how well the first election went and realized that their train was leaving the station so I think there's some hope of keeping all 3 factions together. Either way it's a damn site more than they ever gave or would have given to the Kurds or Shia.
"One would expect that if they didn't do it now especially right after Bagdhad fell that it wouldn't happen on a massive scale."
What do you base that on? Would the occupation by more than 100K U.S. troops make a difference of some kind.
"Either way it's a damn site more than they ever gave or would have given to the Kurds or Shia."
Probably. But the jury's out on how the Kurds or Shia will behave. Judging what has gone on with Shia in Iran it must be difficult to say for certain what they will do in Iraq. I don't think Shiites control any other countries in the Middle East besides Iran.
What do you base that on? Would the occupation by more than 100K U.S. troops make a difference of some kind.
I'm sure it does. But we can't be everywhere and there's been ample opportunity to act on their revenge without us there, and I haven't heard or read anything like that happening other than in isolated incidents.
I think Iran will be the next to fall. The movement within Iran is getting stronger each day and the people getting more bold. I think they can oust the Mullahs internally. I hope that if they need help that we're giving it to them.
So it is the consensous here that Iraq has been "in chaos" for eons before the current quagmire?
I have to disagree. Until the imperial western powers (Britain and France) divided up control of the area after WWI, the Ottoman Empire controlled Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Kuwait for hundreds of years.
The basis of the appeal of religious fundamentalism to Arabs in particular and muslims generally stems from the fact that muslim civilization has been overthrown and supplanted by western imperial interests that support and encourage brutal dictators who suppress the people and profit from their economic relationships with the West.
This is the chief complaint of Osama Bin Laden against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Emir of Kuwait.
Bin Laden's "Holy War" doesn't include any collusion with Baathists! Baathists are socialists who aligned their countries with the Soviet Union (following the lead of Nasser in Egypt.) Both Assad and Hussein were socialist dictators who put their lot in with the Russians to counterbalance the power of Britain, France and, after 1956, the United States in the region.
Bin Laden opposed Hussein's reign as well, and for the same reasons that he opposes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden fought against the Northern Alliance for years in Afghanistan. Who were the Northern Alliance? Socialists aligned with the Soviet Union! The CIA helped Bin Laden fight them.
It is not a "hatred of freedom" that motivates muslim religious fundamentalists. Religious fundamentalists believe that they are being punished, by God, for not adhering to the muslim religion as it was revealed to their prophet. THAT, is what they think is to blame for the decline and overthrow of muslim civilization.
This is why muslim religious fundamentalists oppose the West, generally. They think that only by adherence to muslim principles of government and finance and social organization can they win favor with Allah, so they oppose anyone who interferes with their attempts to do that, and they think they are justified by the sacred origins of the Koran.
I'm not saying I agree with them! But we need to at least hear and know the reasons why they act and encourage others to act. If all we ever hear is "they hate freedom," and "they have no rationale," then we will never get to the point where these people are expressing their frustration in speech and peaceful resistance and political action instead of blowing people up!
Bush wants to establish Iraq's resources as the property of Western oil companies, to be used for the enrichment of his friends. To that end, he wants Iraq to be a secular society whose social, political and financial organization serves the interests of those oil companies (and the United States, in his view.) Bush wants to spend American money paying other corporations to provide construction and security services into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Are Iraqis getting those jobs? Getting those profits? Have any say in how that all goes down? No. It's an imperialist design. It's a colonial design.
Now do you understand why muslim foreigners are flocking to Iraq to join in the nationalist insurgency there? It makes more sense than "they hate freedom," doesn't it?Â
I'm not saying I agree with them! But we need to at least hear and know the reasons why they act and encourage others to act. If all we ever hear is "they hate freedom," and "they have no rationale," then we will never get to the point where these people are expressing their frustration in speech and peaceful resistance and political action instead of blowing people up!
What about the brutal way the Mullahs and their followers have treated fellow Muslims for thousands of years?
 You're right though. We really need ot understand it. It's all because of evil chimpy mcHaliburton. That must be why Theo Van Gogh got his head chopped off.
>What about the brutal way the Mullahs and their followers have treated fellow Muslims for thousands of years?
What about it?
(You're on shaky ground with that one. Islam hasn't existed for "thousands of years")
IMO, religious fundamentalism is generally a threat to all of us. Consider the Inquisition. During the Inquisition, evidence of guilt (confessions) was extracted by torture.
Currently, the Bush Administration has a policy of admitting evidence obtained by torture. What's the purpose of establishing a precedent like that?
>You're right though. We really need ot understand it. It's all because of evil chimpy mcHaliburton. That must be why Theo Van Gogh got his head chopped off.
Religious fundamentalists are trying to tell their followers that the reason why muslim civilization is in decline is because people have turned away from a way of life sanctioned specifically by God.
Then foreign armies come in to try to impose a way of life that will interfere with the mullahs attempts to lead people back to righteousness. The foreign armies must be the armies of the devil, right?
Do you see how much more sticky that is than "they hate freedom?" Do you see why war will not solve this problem?
Let's first of all be honest: There is no over-riding and compelling interest in establishing democracies in the muslim world. The over-riding and compelling interest is control of natural resources by corporate interests. Democracy might be argued as a good tool to serve that interest, but it is not considered an end in itself.
The problem of terrorism can't arguably be solved with war. Dominance of the world's resources CAN be arguably solved by war. That was part of Hitler's plan.
We need to be honest about what the plan is, and then decide if we can support it.Â
He got his head sawed off by some fanatical and criminal psychos.
Does that mean that we should become fanatical and criminal psychos?
Suppose some crazy freak attacks your family and commits unspeakable crimes against them. Are you then justified in seeking out that person's family and committing unspeakable crimes against them?
He got his head sawed off by some fanatical and criminal psychos.
Does that mean that we should become fanatical and criminal psychos?
Suppose some crazy freak attacks your family and commits unspeakable crimes against them. Are you then justified in seeking out that person's family and committing unspeakable crimes against them?
That's what a psycho would do.Â
Thanks for exposing your hypocrisy. Just a few posts ago you said.
"But we need to at least hear and know the reasons why they act and encourage others to act. If"
So the ones who blow up an Iraqi police station or kill some kids lined up to get candy we need to understand their reasons but the ones who saw off a Dutch filmmakers head are just simply psychos. Thanks for making it so easy.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that the fundamentalist mullahs ARE leading the people back to righteousness. I'm arguing that THEY THINK they are leading the people back to righteousness. They have that in common with every fundamentalist religious movement on the planet.
I'm arguing that we have to know and understand the true motivations of the people who are recruiting muslims to fight us. It's just plain common sense.
We aren't served well by politicians who mislead us about what the motivations of our enemies are.
I think I did explain why Van Gogh got his head chopped off.
Islam has been around for less than 1400 years, not thousands of years, and that was what I was trying to point out. There hasn't been "mistreatment of fellow muslims by the mullahs for thousands of years" because there haven't been mullahs or muslims for thousands of years.
I'm not defending ANY of the horrific things being done in the name of the insurgency in Iraq.
However, the insurgency doesn't exist simply because some psychos are acting out. It exists as a reaction to an illegal war launched for the purpose of plundering a sovereign nation.
Also, the war on terrorism is ill defined if the reason given for terrorist attacks is "they hate freedom." It's simply not true. There are very concrete reasons why the muslim fundamentalist movement and it's violent advocates attack Western interests. We need to hear what those reasons are.
Fine Hundreds of years. If that's all that's left in your argument. Sorry, they've only been around 1400 years (Rolls Eyes)
You miss the point. You are pointing to reasons of what we have supposedly done to invite terrorisim yet dismiss the killing of Van Gogh as an act of a psycho. The thing is they (The mullahs and co.) and the pig who killed Van Gogh are BOTH psycho. I have no inclination to reason with people like that any more I would the nazi's Pol Pot etc. Yes I agree it's important to understand thier motivations.
We aren't served well by politicians who mislead us about what the motivations of our enemies are.
Nor are we served well by people so blinded by their own political ideology that they are willing to excuse or use moral equvialence with suicide bombers.
Wether you want to believe it or not they do hate us for our freedoms. We have the freedom to choose, vote, think freely, the freedom to express etc. ALL of which are a threat to their power. They will have ZERO power if they cannot continue to controll people through their twisting of a religion. So in essence, genuine freedom is exactly what they are opposed to. There's also something very sad and arrogant about people who can't see or fail to admit that freedom is as basic of a human desire as breathing is. Yet, some would apparently stick with the status quo and allow millions to languish. Â
I think I did explain why Van Gogh got his head chopped off.
However, the insurgency doesn't exist simply because some psychos are acting out. It exists as a reaction to an illegal war launched for the purpose of plundering a sovereign nation.
Thanks again Mr. Hypocrisy.
Let's re-cap.
Taraka Das line of logic........
Guy who sawed off Van Goghs head = Psycho
Guy who blows up Iraqi kids getting candy = Reaction to illegal war for the purpose of plundering a soverign nation.
>I have no inclination to reason with people like that any more I would the nazi's Pol Pot etc. Yes I agree it's important to understand thier motivations.
With regard to people who commit or plan or advocate terrorist attacks, we need not reason with them. They should be arrested, tried and if guilty sentenced to prison. If there are special problems doing that (like they have control of a country!) then I agree that we might need to take action against them.
The problem with Iraq is that the reasons given for taking military action there were all LIES. A better course of action with regard to Hussein would have been war crimes indictments. Milosevic was in control of a country and we got that dirty rat.
Back to religious fundamentalists: They are the root of the terrorism problem. Their reasons for opposing the West have some weight, even if the actions that they advocate are extreme. People don't join up with them because they "hate freedom," they join up because they are convinced that the mullahs speak the truth with spiritual conviction. The key to solving the problem of terrorism is to address the grievances that the mullahs use to sell people on the idea of martyrdom.
Finally, I agree with you on this: Fundamentalists don't like people thinking for themselves. It threatens their authority. The best thing that we can do is start a dialogue that challenges the assertions they are feeding to people. That's part of what I propose.
To repeat, I haven't defended ANY of the horrific things being done in the name of the insurgency.
You don't have any trouble condemning someone who blows up kids getting candy from a foreign invader, but you have support for a foreign invader?
Kids caught in the middle of a war: who started that war?
What's the reason for that war?
And then we are back to the talking points of the likes of Osama Bin Laden. People are flocking to Iraq to fight because the reasons they are being told by Bin Laden have a ring of truth to them when oil executives meet in London to divide up the spoils of war in Iraq.
It would help if we didn't have a pathological liar for a president.
The problem with Iraq is that the reasons given for taking military action there were all LIES. A better course of action with regard to Hussein would have been war crimes indictments. Milosevic was in control of a country and we got that dirty rat.
Saddam was in control of a country too.
And the only reason or way we got Milosevic was bombing the shit out of the country from the air. The UN Didn't approve of it either. I think we were right to go there BTW.
Secret memo...LOL!
WOW! One whole post without a reference to Vietnam!
4 posts without a Vietnam reference! A record?
Learning that Vietnam and Iraq have little in common?
Â
Carl Rove broke federal law.
The new mantra of the left. There is yet no proof that any law was broken. But the left doesn't care as long as it thinks it can make people believe it to be so.
Hang in there, as it will soon be quite-apparent even to people like you, in total denial.
We all know how this works. The left wing won't believe it when there are no charges filed. And they'll cry and whine about that. Why? Because the truth does not matter to them. It is all about their lack of power.Â
They just keep getting stronger.
"After concentrating their efforts for two and a half years on driving out the 138,000-plus American troops, the insurgents appear to be shifting their focus to the political and sectarian polarization of the country - apparently hoping to ignite a civil war - and to the isolation of the Iraqi government abroad."
And...
"Americans concede the growing sophistication of insurgent attacks and the insurgents' ability to replenish their ranks as fast as they are killed.
"We are capturing or killing a lot of insurgents," said a senior Army intelligence officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to make his assessments public. "But they're being replaced quicker than we can interdict their operations. There is always another insurgent ready to step up and take charge."
Says the guy who was calling for more troops.
Which is it? More troops? Pull out completely? Draw down some numbers? Stay in the green zone?
To leave right now would be a disaster of the worst kind. It would waste the effort of our troops and do them a disservice. The largest diservice would be to the Iraqi people themselves.
We were hit many times around the globe well before we had troops in Iraq. If we weren't there they would have another reason or justification for attacking like, oh I don't know, having the audacity to breathe.
Â
"And then you come after ME".......
Same old. Same old.
Is it Bill-Fold or Victim-Fold?
Â
I didn't "come after" I merely disagreed. Geez. Nothing's changed, you're still over reacting the minute somebody disagrees.
You implied that we were being attacked because we are in Iraq. BTW. Zarchawi went to Iraq for medical care when he was wounded in Afghanistan.
There's allot a love in this thread :)
Â
Â
Don't mention interest rates or the economy.
"I have ALWAYS said, we should set a date and then get the hell OUT. "
What do you think will happen to Iraq the day after?
At least what I quote is accurate and not just some made up shit to further my twisted agenda.
Whatever that means.
O.K Let's review. You at first said you never thought we should go in there. O.K fine. I disagree but understand your point of view. Then once we were there you said we should have had allot more troops. When more troops were mentioned you said it was because of Rummy Gdubya poor planning etc. etc. Then for months you say we should get out. When they hint at that you complain too.
This coming from a guy yelling bogged down after 1 week. You determined the outcome based upon what your pre concieved notion.
A country is not made over night and it's a huge task. But right now as we speak the Iraqi people are drafting a constitiution. The entire mid east is in flux and for the better in most cases. Change is scary to some people but change was long long over due in the ME. Many have begrudginly given the evil Gdubya some credit for that. Some can't, fine I'd rather see the ME keep changing than score political points. The sad part is that some are so blinded by thier ideology that they can't acknowledge any positive steps for fear that it gives them the appearance of being wrong. Iraqis are tough people and they'll come through this well.
Yeah, I'm the one choking.
Right now I see U.S. military presence in the Middle East for the rest of my life.
Geez Fold, don't you have any new 8th grade material?
You seem to have enough of it.
Right now I see U.S. military presence in the Middle East for the rest of my life.
Probably, Rick.
Maybe in our kids lifetime.
Perhaps we ought to get out of the Balkans first. Or Japan.....Or So Kor. or Germany....
"You seem to have enough of it"....What's this? An insult/taunt from Mr. Fucking Perfect?
Â
Â
You LIKE the IRAQ War? You go fight it.
Yea Bill, I love war. I've seen the place. pffft.
But please, cut the Poor Dubbya - Happy Day for Iraq, bullshit.
"What's this? An insult/taunt from Mr. Fucking Perfect? "
You use 8th grade material almost exclusively. So I thought I was paying you a compliment.
If it was that unpopular and the polls were correct then he should have gotten trolloped in November. Didn't happen.
You're right. The political process has no chance of moving forward and the security forces will never be able to act on their own..............quagmire!
The elections in Iraq will never happen either.
That's the spirit!
"You're right. The political process has no chance of moving forward."
What is the price of the life of a Sunni Muslim the day after the coalition leaves?
Well if there was going to be mass retribution I would think we would have seen it by now. In general they are allowing them a place at the table. They want Saddams thugs brought to justice and rightly so but there has not been mass retribution killings by the Shias and Kurds as was first feared. One would expect that if they didn't do it now especially right after Bagdhad fell that it wouldn't happen on a massive scale. Is it still possible? Sure, but I think it would have already happened.
The Sunni's have now decided too to be part of the process. They saw their mistake and admitted as much after how well the first election went and realized that their train was leaving the station so I think there's some hope of keeping all 3 factions together. Either way it's a damn site more than they ever gave or would have given to the Kurds or Shia.
Â
"One would expect that if they didn't do it now especially right after Bagdhad fell that it wouldn't happen on a massive scale."
What do you base that on? Would the occupation by more than 100K U.S. troops make a difference of some kind.
"Either way it's a damn site more than they ever gave or would have given to the Kurds or Shia."
Probably. But the jury's out on how the Kurds or Shia will behave. Judging what has gone on with Shia in Iran it must be difficult to say for certain what they will do in Iraq. I don't think Shiites control any other countries in the Middle East besides Iran.
ÂÂ
What do you base that on? Would the occupation by more than 100K U.S. troops make a difference of some kind.
I'm sure it does. But we can't be everywhere and there's been ample opportunity to act on their revenge without us there, and I haven't heard or read anything like that happening other than in isolated incidents.
I think Iran will be the next to fall. The movement within Iran is getting stronger each day and the people getting more bold. I think they can oust the Mullahs internally. I hope that if they need help that we're giving it to them.
Hmmm.
So it is the consensous here that Iraq has been "in chaos" for eons before the current quagmire?
I have to disagree. Until the imperial western powers (Britain and France) divided up control of the area after WWI, the Ottoman Empire controlled Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Kuwait for hundreds of years.
The basis of the appeal of religious fundamentalism to Arabs in particular and muslims generally stems from the fact that muslim civilization has been overthrown and supplanted by western imperial interests that support and encourage brutal dictators who suppress the people and profit from their economic relationships with the West.
This is the chief complaint of Osama Bin Laden against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Emir of Kuwait.
Bin Laden's "Holy War" doesn't include any collusion with Baathists! Baathists are socialists who aligned their countries with the Soviet Union (following the lead of Nasser in Egypt.) Both Assad and Hussein were socialist dictators who put their lot in with the Russians to counterbalance the power of Britain, France and, after 1956, the United States in the region.
Bin Laden opposed Hussein's reign as well, and for the same reasons that he opposes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden fought against the Northern Alliance for years in Afghanistan. Who were the Northern Alliance? Socialists aligned with the Soviet Union! The CIA helped Bin Laden fight them.
It is not a "hatred of freedom" that motivates muslim religious fundamentalists. Religious fundamentalists believe that they are being punished, by God, for not adhering to the muslim religion as it was revealed to their prophet. THAT, is what they think is to blame for the decline and overthrow of muslim civilization.
This is why muslim religious fundamentalists oppose the West, generally. They think that only by adherence to muslim principles of government and finance and social organization can they win favor with Allah, so they oppose anyone who interferes with their attempts to do that, and they think they are justified by the sacred origins of the Koran.
I'm not saying I agree with them! But we need to at least hear and know the reasons why they act and encourage others to act. If all we ever hear is "they hate freedom," and "they have no rationale," then we will never get to the point where these people are expressing their frustration in speech and peaceful resistance and political action instead of blowing people up!
Bush wants to establish Iraq's resources as the property of Western oil companies, to be used for the enrichment of his friends. To that end, he wants Iraq to be a secular society whose social, political and financial organization serves the interests of those oil companies (and the United States, in his view.) Bush wants to spend American money paying other corporations to provide construction and security services into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Are Iraqis getting those jobs? Getting those profits? Have any say in how that all goes down? No. It's an imperialist design. It's a colonial design.
Now do you understand why muslim foreigners are flocking to Iraq to join in the nationalist insurgency there? It makes more sense than "they hate freedom," doesn't it?Â
I'm not saying I agree with them! But we need to at least hear and know the reasons why they act and encourage others to act. If all we ever hear is "they hate freedom," and "they have no rationale," then we will never get to the point where these people are expressing their frustration in speech and peaceful resistance and political action instead of blowing people up!
What about the brutal way the Mullahs and their followers have treated fellow Muslims for thousands of years?
 You're right though. We really need ot understand it. It's all because of evil chimpy mcHaliburton. That must be why Theo Van Gogh got his head chopped off.
Luv2Fly 7/28/05 12:29pm
>What about the brutal way the Mullahs and their followers have treated fellow Muslims for thousands of years?
What about it?
(You're on shaky ground with that one. Islam hasn't existed for "thousands of years")
IMO, religious fundamentalism is generally a threat to all of us. Consider the Inquisition. During the Inquisition, evidence of guilt (confessions) was extracted by torture.
Currently, the Bush Administration has a policy of admitting evidence obtained by torture. What's the purpose of establishing a precedent like that?
We are adopting policies from the Inquisition?
We are the enlightened, rational ones?
You're on shaky ground with that one. Islam hasn't existed for "thousands of years")
Yea it's only been around since the 6th Century. (Rolls Eyes)
And your explination why Theo Van Gogh got his head sawed off ?
>You're right though. We really need ot understand it. It's all because of evil chimpy mcHaliburton. That must be why Theo Van Gogh got his head chopped off.
Religious fundamentalists are trying to tell their followers that the reason why muslim civilization is in decline is because people have turned away from a way of life sanctioned specifically by God.
Then foreign armies come in to try to impose a way of life that will interfere with the mullahs attempts to lead people back to righteousness. The foreign armies must be the armies of the devil, right?
Do you see how much more sticky that is than "they hate freedom?" Do you see why war will not solve this problem?
Let's first of all be honest: There is no over-riding and compelling interest in establishing democracies in the muslim world. The over-riding and compelling interest is control of natural resources by corporate interests. Democracy might be argued as a good tool to serve that interest, but it is not considered an end in itself.
The problem of terrorism can't arguably be solved with war. Dominance of the world's resources CAN be arguably solved by war. That was part of Hitler's plan.
We need to be honest about what the plan is, and then decide if we can support it.Â
Luv2Fly 7/28/05 12:45pm
He got his head sawed off by some fanatical and criminal psychos.
Does that mean that we should become fanatical and criminal psychos?
Suppose some crazy freak attacks your family and commits unspeakable crimes against them. Are you then justified in seeking out that person's family and committing unspeakable crimes against them?
That's what a psycho would do.Â
Then foreign armies come in to try to impose a way of life that will interfere with the mullahs attempts to lead people back to righteousness.
If you think that most of those mullahs are leading people to righteousness explains allot.
You still didn't explain why Theo Van Gogh got his head sawed off though. He's not in any army and is/was Dutch. So please do explain.
And BTW Islam has been around since the 6th Century.
Â
He got his head sawed off by some fanatical and criminal psychos.
Does that mean that we should become fanatical and criminal psychos?
Suppose some crazy freak attacks your family and commits unspeakable crimes against them. Are you then justified in seeking out that person's family and committing unspeakable crimes against them?
That's what a psycho would do.Â
Thanks for exposing your hypocrisy. Just a few posts ago you said.
"But we need to at least hear and know the reasons why they act and encourage others to act. If"
So the ones who blow up an Iraqi police station or kill some kids lined up to get candy we need to understand their reasons but the ones who saw off a Dutch filmmakers head are just simply psychos. Thanks for making it so easy.
Luv2Fly 7/28/05 12:54pm
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that the fundamentalist mullahs ARE leading the people back to righteousness. I'm arguing that THEY THINK they are leading the people back to righteousness. They have that in common with every fundamentalist religious movement on the planet.
I'm arguing that we have to know and understand the true motivations of the people who are recruiting muslims to fight us. It's just plain common sense.
We aren't served well by politicians who mislead us about what the motivations of our enemies are.
I think I did explain why Van Gogh got his head chopped off.
Islam has been around for less than 1400 years, not thousands of years, and that was what I was trying to point out. There hasn't been "mistreatment of fellow muslims by the mullahs for thousands of years" because there haven't been mullahs or muslims for thousands of years.
Luv2Fly 7/28/05 12:58pm
There is no inconsistency in my position at all.
I'm not defending ANY of the horrific things being done in the name of the insurgency in Iraq.
However, the insurgency doesn't exist simply because some psychos are acting out. It exists as a reaction to an illegal war launched for the purpose of plundering a sovereign nation.
Also, the war on terrorism is ill defined if the reason given for terrorist attacks is "they hate freedom." It's simply not true. There are very concrete reasons why the muslim fundamentalist movement and it's violent advocates attack Western interests. We need to hear what those reasons are.
Fine Hundreds of years. If that's all that's left in your argument. Sorry, they've only been around 1400 years (Rolls Eyes)
You miss the point. You are pointing to reasons of what we have supposedly done to invite terrorisim yet dismiss the killing of Van Gogh as an act of a psycho. The thing is they (The mullahs and co.) and the pig who killed Van Gogh are BOTH psycho. I have no inclination to reason with people like that any more I would the nazi's Pol Pot etc. Yes I agree it's important to understand thier motivations.
We aren't served well by politicians who mislead us about what the motivations of our enemies are.
Nor are we served well by people so blinded by their own political ideology that they are willing to excuse or use moral equvialence with suicide bombers.
Wether you want to believe it or not they do hate us for our freedoms. We have the freedom to choose, vote, think freely, the freedom to express etc. ALL of which are a threat to their power. They will have ZERO power if they cannot continue to controll people through their twisting of a religion. So in essence, genuine freedom is exactly what they are opposed to. There's also something very sad and arrogant about people who can't see or fail to admit that freedom is as basic of a human desire as breathing is. Yet, some would apparently stick with the status quo and allow millions to languish. Â
I think I did explain why Van Gogh got his head chopped off.
Actually you didn't.
Â
Â
Â
However, the insurgency doesn't exist simply because some psychos are acting out. It exists as a reaction to an illegal war launched for the purpose of plundering a sovereign nation.
Thanks again Mr. Hypocrisy.
Let's re-cap.
Taraka Das line of logic........
Guy who sawed off Van Goghs head = Psycho
Guy who blows up Iraqi kids getting candy = Reaction to illegal war for the purpose of plundering a soverign nation.
Hypocrite.
Â
>I have no inclination to reason with people like that any more I would the nazi's Pol Pot etc. Yes I agree it's important to understand thier motivations.
With regard to people who commit or plan or advocate terrorist attacks, we need not reason with them. They should be arrested, tried and if guilty sentenced to prison. If there are special problems doing that (like they have control of a country!) then I agree that we might need to take action against them.
The problem with Iraq is that the reasons given for taking military action there were all LIES. A better course of action with regard to Hussein would have been war crimes indictments. Milosevic was in control of a country and we got that dirty rat.
Back to religious fundamentalists: They are the root of the terrorism problem. Their reasons for opposing the West have some weight, even if the actions that they advocate are extreme. People don't join up with them because they "hate freedom," they join up because they are convinced that the mullahs speak the truth with spiritual conviction. The key to solving the problem of terrorism is to address the grievances that the mullahs use to sell people on the idea of martyrdom.
Finally, I agree with you on this: Fundamentalists don't like people thinking for themselves. It threatens their authority. The best thing that we can do is start a dialogue that challenges the assertions they are feeding to people. That's part of what I propose.
what was the reason they chopped off his head?
Luv2Fly 7/28/05 1:18pm
To repeat, I haven't defended ANY of the horrific things being done in the name of the insurgency.
You don't have any trouble condemning someone who blows up kids getting candy from a foreign invader, but you have support for a foreign invader?
Kids caught in the middle of a war: who started that war?
What's the reason for that war?
And then we are back to the talking points of the likes of Osama Bin Laden. People are flocking to Iraq to fight because the reasons they are being told by Bin Laden have a ring of truth to them when oil executives meet in London to divide up the spoils of war in Iraq.
It would help if we didn't have a pathological liar for a president.
The problem with Iraq is that the reasons given for taking military action there were all LIES. A better course of action with regard to Hussein would have been war crimes indictments. Milosevic was in control of a country and we got that dirty rat.
Saddam was in control of a country too.
And the only reason or way we got Milosevic was bombing the shit out of the country from the air. The UN Didn't approve of it either. I think we were right to go there BTW.
crabgrass 7/28/05 1:38pm
You know why they chopped off his head, Crabby.
Psychos. Prejudiced, fanatical psychos.
And on top of all that, it's U.S. support of Israel.
The reasons for wild fundamentalist hatred of the U.S.
1. Israel 2. Israel 3, 4, 5, 6, and so on, everything you two are discussing.